Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 10501–10600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Paul Components Private Limited v.Hi Tech Arai Private Limited
This matter before the Delhi High Court concerned an application by Paul Components Private Limited seeking permission to inspect the original, unredacted versions of technical drawings filed by Hi Tech Arai Private Limited. The defendant had initially placed redacted copies on record, citing that the removed portions contained commercially sensitive trade secrets related to manufacturing specifications. Despite the plaintiff's initial 'no objection' to the redactions, the court rejected the application, holding that once a party agrees to documents being placed on record in a redacted format due to confidentiality concerns, they are not entitled to inspect the unredacted originals.
Emerson Process Mangement Power And Water Solutions Inc v.Controller Of Patents
Emerson Process Management filed appeals challenging the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) relating to computer software. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the lack of novelty and inventiveness in associated hardware—no longer aligns with current Patent Office guidelines.
Emerson Process Management Power And Water Solutions Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emerson Process Management appealed the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) for computer software patents. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the novelty and inventiveness of associated hardware—no longer applied under current Patent Office guidelines.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter & Gamble challenged the Controller's order refusing its 'Detergent Compositions' patent application due to lack of inventive step. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary, citing a four-year delay in processing and the Patent Office failing to grant adequate time for responding to objections raised under Section 8(2) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court agreed with the appellant, finding the process contrary to natural justice and statutory timelines.
University Of Guelph v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
The University of Guelph filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated July 26, 2019, which refused to grant Indian patent application no. 642/DELNP/2011. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and statutory exclusions under the Patents Act, 1970.
Ask Automotive Pvt Ltd v.Ashok Kumar (Manoj Mudgal)
The plaintiff company, ASK Automotive Pvt Ltd, filed a civil suit alleging that the defendant, Manoj Mudgal, was manufacturing and selling goods (brake shoes) bearing the identical or deceptively similar trademark/trade dress 'ASK', thereby infringing on the plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyrights. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions and awarding damages.
Sintex Industries Ltd. v.Acme Tale Power Ltd And Anr (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited)
Sintex Industries Ltd filed a rectification petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 2137154, titled "Phase Change Material," which was granted to Acme Tele Power Limited (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited). The court considered an affidavit from the respondent confirming that while they were previously in the telecom industry, their current focus is renewable energy and solar power projects. Crucially, the respondent stated they had no objection to the patent being revoked prospectively.
E. I. Dupont De Nemours And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
E. I. Dupont De Nemours And Company filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated December 16, 2019, which refused to grant Indian patent application no. 1845/DELNP/2011. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and objections under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
M/s.Indian Immunologicals Ltd. v.Ipca Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court set aside an earlier rejection order, allowing M/s. Indian Immunologicals Ltd. (the appellant) to register the trade mark 'INIMOX'. The dispute centered on whether 'INIMOX' was deceptively similar to the prior registered mark 'IMOX' held by Ipca Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The Court found that despite the similarity, there was no likelihood of confusion because the marks were used in distinct channels—one for veterinary injections and the other for human capsules—and mandated that registration be conditional on its use only for animal health products.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s. PGR E-Commerce Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited against M/s. PGR E-Commerce Private Limited. The petitioner had sought the rectification and cancellation of Trade Mark No. 3848331 from the Register of Trade Marks. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on scheduled dates despite proper notice, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
M/S Ralson (India) Limited v.Shri. Surinder Singla
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/s Ralson's appeal challenging the Trade Marks Registry's decision to dismiss their opposition against the 'RANCHO' trademark. The core issue revolved around whether service of documents via email constituted valid notice, especially when no explicit email ID was provided in the initial opposition filing. The court held that while general rules allow for electronic service, specific statutory requirements must be met, distinguishing this case from prior precedents. However, recognizing Ralson's substantive claims, the Court granted them liberty to file a cancellation petition against the registered mark.
The Himalaya Durg Company & Ors v.Himalya International Ltd
In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application by the defendant seeking permission to file fresh evidence. Despite objections from the plaintiffs that the new defense went beyond pleadings, the court permitted the filing of the affidavit in evidence (DW-1). The court also reminded both parties about the long pendency of the case and directed a day-to-day trial to expedite proceedings.
Ralson India Limited v.Sham Lal M/S Ramesh Lal And Sons And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ralson India Limited against the Trade Marks Registry's decision that had allowed the registration of 'R RALSON'. The core issue revolved around whether service of documents via email, facilitated through an agent's filing (Form TM-M), constituted valid service under the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that while general court practice allows for email service, in this specific trade mark opposition context, the validity of service depended on clear provisions within the application or notice itself; however, it granted Ralson liberty to pursue a cancellation petition based on the mark's registered status.
Dsm Ip Assets B.V. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Dsm Ip Assets B.V. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to overturn an order refusing to grant a patent on Application No. 3957/CHENP/2011. The appeal was dismissed by the Madras High Court because the appellant failed to appear in court at the hearing, despite being served notice.
M/s. Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi v.M/s.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
M/s. Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition and an Appeal before the Madras High Court challenging orders related to patent matters. The petitioner sought condonation of delay and relief regarding the impugned order dated December 12, 2019. The court dismissed the TCMP(PT)/3/2023, consequently dismissing the appeal at the SR stage.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Jai Farm Chemicals Pvt Ltd
The dispute between Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) and Jai Farm Chemicals Pvt Ltd (Defendant) regarding infringement of Indian Patent 394568 was settled. The Defendant acknowledged the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the patented formulation and undertook not to infringe the patent during its lifetime.
Helix Biomedix Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Helix Biomedix Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Short Bio-Active Peptides for Cellular and Immunological Modulation'. The rejection was based on Section 3(c) because the claimed peptides were derived from Hyalophora cecropia (Cecropia moth). The High Court set aside the order, finding that the respondent failed to address the appellant's submissions regarding the chemical synthesis of the peptides.
Laser Shaving (India) Private Limited v.Carborundum Universal Ltd.
The Madras High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Laser Shaving (India) Private Limited against Carborundum Universal Ltd. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the registration for the mark 'LASER' in Class 3, citing the first respondent's admission that they were not using the impugned trade mark. This decision reinforces the principle that non-use can lead to the removal of a registered trademark.
M/S F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. v.M/S Modern Machinery Stores G.T. Road
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the ongoing trademark dispute between M/S F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. and M/S Modern Machinery Stores G.T. Road. The court noted that the matter was pending before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Consequently, the judge requested the mediator to expedite the proceedings and listed the case for further hearing on December 7, 2023.
M/S Loreal S.A. v.Ravi Gandhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Loreal S.A., setting aside a lower court order that had permitted respondents to use the trademark 'MABELLE' as part of their corporate name and business communications. The Court clarified that while Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, addresses trade names, the unauthorized use of a registered mark in this manner still constitutes infringement under other sections, specifically Section 29(6)(d). This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to registered trademarks against deceptive similarity and commercial exploitation.
Havells India Limited v.Polycab India Limited
Havells India Limited filed a suit alleging design piracy against Polycab India Limited concerning three registered designs for ceiling fans. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's ELANZA and ELEGANZ PLUS ranges infringed the plaintiff's 2016, 2021, and 2022 designs. The court examined the specific features of each design, particularly focusing on surface patterns and overall configuration. The judgment found that while the injunction against Polycab's ELANZA range regarding the 2016 design was maintained, the claims concerning the 2021 and 2022 designs were dismissed. The court concluded that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of piracy for these latter two designs due to marked differences in their surface patterns.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its divisional patent application (8584/DELNP/2007). The appeal was filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. However, the court disposed of the appeal because the term of the parent patent application had expired during the pendency of the appeal.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Sudpita Dey Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Ors.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated January 11, 2022, which refused to grant a patent for 'Insecticidal Composition'. The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and listed the matter for final hearing.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter & Gamble Company appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its patent application for 'A DETERGENT COMPOSITION COMPRISING LIPASE VARIANT'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art. P&G argued that the refusal violated natural justice principles due to procedural delays.
International Foodstuffs Co. Llc v.Vijay Kumar Mittal And Pawan Kumar And ...
The dispute between International Foodstuffs Co. Llc and Vijay Kumar Mittal was resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, acknowledging each other's proprietary rights in the trademark 'ALLEGRO' across different product categories and jurisdictions. This resolution required both parties to withdraw existing legal actions and abide by specific usage restrictions for the mark.
Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahmud Trading as VKD Industries
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Veekesy Rubber Industries seeking the removal of the trade mark 'PPL Light' from the register. The case was resolved because the respondent, Mahmud Trading as VKD Industries, provided an affidavit undertaking not to use the impugned mark and committed to filing an application for its cancellation with the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the court found it unnecessary to adjudicate the petition on its merits.
Yuvi Aspiring Pvt. Ltd. v.Manish Sharma And Anr
The Delhi High Court formally accepted a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Yuvi Aspiring Pvt. Ltd., Manish Sharma, and Unifique Hospitality International Pvt. Ltd. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, which involved the transfer of the registered trademark 'The Drunken Botanist' from Manish Sharma to the third party for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Crucially, the settlement also included a waiver by the first party of all future claims related to the trademark.
10xGenomics Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc. et al.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-05) under reference UPC-001668, 10xGenomics Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College appeared in dispute with NanoString Technologies Inc. et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Hamburg (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-05) under reference UPC-001667, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited appeared in dispute with Tesla Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Crc Industries Europe Besloten v.Bhalaria Corporation
The Bombay High Court granted the plaintiff permission to de-seal seized 'impugned products' from the premises of certain defendants. The core issue was determining whether these seized goods were counterfeit or legitimately procured through authorized distributors. The court allowed the plaintiff to take two samples for investigation, ensuring the entire process would be conducted transparently in the presence of all parties and videographed.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Expert e-Commerce GmbH u. a.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-04) under reference UPC-001671, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. appeared in dispute with Expert e-Commerce GmbH u. a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
*** v.PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG, AWMS.R.L., SCHNELL S.P.A.
In this legal proceeding before Milan (IT) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-04) under reference UPC-001670, *** appeared in dispute with PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG, AWMS.R.L., SCHNELL S.P.A. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Vrajotsav Goswami v.Devendra Verma
Vrajotsav Goswami filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Devendra Verma, alleging infringement and passing off of his unique singing style name 'Vrajrang' (ब्रजररग), which he claimed to have developed since 1983. The defendant counter-claimed for declaration of prior user rights over the word 'Brajrang'.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
T-Mobile USA Inc appealed the Controller's refusal to grant a patent for 'Preferred Contact Group Centric Interface'. The Controller refused the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art and arguing that the invention was essentially a computer program per se, lacking technical effect beyond normal hardware interaction.
Vrajotsav Goswami v.Devendra Verma And Anr.
The plaintiff, Vrajotsav Goswami, sought permanent injunction against defendants for infringement of his 'Vrajrang' style/trademark and passing off. The dispute centered on the use of the name 'Vrajrang (ब्रजररग)' by the defendant No. 1 in publishing a book. Both the main suit and the counter claim filed by the defendant were ultimately dismissed.
Piruz Khambatta Thro Poa Zubin Khambhatta v.Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Piruz Khambatta, who opposed the registration of the trademark 'RASANAND' in Class 32 (soft drinks). The court found that despite the appellant's claims of similarity to their marks like 'RASNA', there was no evidence of actual public confusion. Furthermore, the court held that the two marks were distinct in nature and appearance, allowing the registration process to continue.
OCV Intellectual Capital, LLC v.Union Of India & Ors.
The appellant challenged an order dated March 30, 2016, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting its patent application. The court found that two appeals were filed challenging the same order (AID 18/2022 and IPDPTA 34/2022), making AID 18/2022 redundant. However, since the primary appeal (IPDPTA 34/2022) was dismissed for default, the court directed the parties to appear on a future date.
Vakzine Projekt Management Gmbh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Vakzine Projekt Management Gmbh appealed against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its patent application. The rejection was based on the grounds that the composition fell within the scope of Section 3(d) and Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Panasonic Intellectual Property appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its patent application for a 'Washing Machine' due to lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked detailed reasoning and cited foreign grants. The High Court found that the impugned order merely extracted prior art without engaging with the appellant's submissions, thus lacking reasons.
Abbvie Biotherapeutics Inc & Abbvie Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents Designs
Abbvie Biotherapeutics Inc & Abbvie Inc filed a fresh appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated July 31, 2023, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing to grant patent application no. '201817047767'. The subject matter is related to ANTI-cMet Antibody Drug Conjugates.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
JFE Steel Corporation filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents' decision to refuse its patent application. The refusal was based on the grounds that the claims did not fulfill the criteria of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Rahul Sharma And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., recognizing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off against Rahul Sharma and others. The court found that the use of deceptively similar marks like 'Dream 11 onlinematka' creates a high chance of confusion, especially online. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark and directed to lock and suspend the associated website and domain name.
M/s. Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt.Ltd v.M/s.Anti Surge Fuses and Lamps; M/s.Shri Krishna Industries; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s. Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt.Ltd seeking removal of a trademark entry from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to repeated difficulties in serving notice and locating the petitioner at the specified address. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Indarmal M Solanki v.Rakesh Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Indarmal M Solanki against Rakesh Gupta, leading to the cancellation of the contested trademark 'EL PASO'. The court found that the impugned mark was identical to the Petitioner's prior registered and used marks for readymade garments (Class 25). Furthermore, the Respondent failed to renew the registration since April 2017, making it liable for removal under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the court ordered the cancellation and deletion of the mark from the register.
Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr. v.Ena Universal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking to enforce an existing injunction against trademark infringement related to 'BAJAJ ALMOND DROPS'. The Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were circumventing the court order by selling infringing products through e-commerce platforms under different names. Recognizing this evasion, the Court allowed the impleadment of new parties, including AMZ Venturz, VBRO Skin Care, and Flipkart itself, to ensure comprehensive enforcement against all involved entities.
Daicel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Daicel Corporation appealed a rejection order passed by the Joint Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for a disintegrating tablet. The Patent Office rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Icahn School Of Medicine at Mount Sinai v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No.3414/CHENP/2008) for a chimeric NDV vaccine targeting two viruses, specifically Newcastle disease virus and influenza virus. The court reviewed the original rejection based on obviousness and allowed the application to proceed to grant after accepting the amended claims submitted by the appellant.
Manipal Holdings Private Limited v.Manipal Academy Of Higher Education Deemed University, Registrar of Trade Marks, MEMG International India Private Limited, Manipal Global Education Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a series of Trade Mark Rectification petitions filed by Manipal Holdings Private Limited against various entities. The court noted that the contesting parties had reached an amicable settlement and executed a compromise decree on November 4, 2023. Consequently, the petitioner requested that all rectification petitions be closed as withdrawn in line with the terms of the settlement.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Shree Sakshat Money Lenders And Exchange Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions filed by Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. seeking cancellation of 'TIGER' device logos registered by Shree Sakshat Money Lenders. The court noted the near identity between the marks and directed that status quo be maintained concerning the registrations. This interim order prevents any transfer, license, or assignment of the disputed trademarks while the matter proceeds.
Himalayan Heli Services Private Limited v.Himachal Helicopter Skiing Pty Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving the cancellation of a trademark registration (No. 1523434) held by Himachal Helicopter Skiing Pty Ltd, which was sought by Himalayan Heli Services Private Limited. Given the extensive overlap between the ongoing cancellation petition and an older passing-off suit, the court directed that both cases be consolidated for trial. This strategic move aims to streamline the litigation process, ensuring a unified determination of who holds the rightful rights in the 'Himalayan Heli Services' mark.
Bolt Technology Ou v.Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court found the defendants guilty of contumacious and willful disobedience regarding a previous court order dated November 23, 2022. The original order had clearly prohibited the defendants from using their standalone mark 'BOLT' and an earlier logo, allowing only for future expansion under a modified mark ('BOLT.EARTH'). Despite this categorical direction, the defendants continued to use the proscribed marks. Consequently, the court held them in contempt and scheduled a hearing to determine the appropriate sentence.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited v.Appollo Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit against Apollo Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, alleging infringement of its registered design and trademark, as well as passing off their beer products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, accounting of profits, destruction of infringing goods, and damages amounting to Rs. 2 Crores. However, the suit was ultimately dismissed by the court upon the request of the plaintiff's counsel.
Kuraray Co. Ltd v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Kuraray Co. Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process involving PVA film for plant cultivation. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the specific properties (birefringence and swelling degree) of the PVA film provided unexpected excellent results.
Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited v.Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a review petition filed by Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited against an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB had previously allowed a rectification petition, effectively invalidating the petitioner's registered trademark. The court found that the original order violated the principles of natural justice because service of notice was not properly effected on the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed that the rectification petition be heard afresh before the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) of the Court.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Shree Sakshat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Heineken Asia Pacific filed cancellation petitions against trademarks registered by Shree Sakshat Infrastructure, alleging that the Respondent is a squatter who has registered an identical device mark. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the near identity between the marks in dispute. Consequently, the court directed that status quo be maintained concerning the registration and prohibited any transfer or assignment of the disputed trademark until further proceedings.
Burger King Company Llc v.Ranjan Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong standing of Burger King Company LLC, declaring its trademark 'BURGER KING' to be well-known in India. The court relied on extensive global usage, massive promotional investment, and local market presence (over 400 outlets) to establish secondary meaning. This ruling significantly strengthens the brand's protection against unauthorized use by defendants operating under similar names like 'Burger King Family Restaurant'.
Sunstar Overseas Ltd. v.Hello Minerals Waters Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Sunstar Overseas Ltd. seeking rectification of the trademark 'HELLO' (No. 666671). The court noted that despite repeated attempts to serve notice and ensure appearance, neither the petitioner nor the respondent appeared in court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
India International Technical Institute v.Terala Educational Society
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by India International Technical Institute seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, 'SANSKRITI,' held by Terala Educational Society. The court noted that the mark's last registration was valid only up to March 23, 2020, and its renewal had long expired. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the certificate and remove the entry from the Register within one month.
Burger King Company Llc v.Virendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong protection afforded to the 'BURGER KING' trademark, declaring it a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act. The court relied on Burger King's extensive global presence, long history (since 1954), massive promotional spending, and established secondary meaning in India. This judgment reinforces that globally recognized brands can secure enhanced legal protection against unauthorized use by local operators.
S3G Technology Llc v.Sourcetrace Systems India Private
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 328489. The parties later entered into a settlement agreement, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
SELFDOT TECHNOLOGIES (OPC) PVT. LTD. v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The appeal challenged an order rejecting a patent application (No. 201843023004) on the ground that the applicant contravened Section 39 of the Patents Act, leading to deemed abandonment under Section 40. The appellant argued that since the parent invention was first filed in India and the breach was technical, not substantive, the rejection should be overturned.
Lipotec, S.A. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Lipotec appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 7314/CHENP/2009) for 'Regulatory Compounds For Pigmentation'. The rejection was based on Section 3(d) and lack of inventive step, citing prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Controller disregarded experimental data and detailed submissions.
Bcs S.P.A. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bcs S.P.A. appealed the Controller's decision rejecting its patent application for an 'Agricultural Driving Mechanism and Related Tool'. The appellant argued that the rejection order was unreasoned, merely reproducing extracts from prior art without proper analysis. The High Court agreed, finding the order bereft of reasoning, and set it aside.
GOTO Technologies USA, Inc. v.Sanikommu Venkata Ramalinga Reddy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of GOTO Technologies USA, Inc., allowing petitions to cancel several trademark registrations held by Sanikommu Venkata Ramalinga Reddy. The court found that the respondent had adopted the prominent 'GOTO' part of the petitioner’s established mark without justification. By demonstrating its long history and market presence, the petitioner successfully countered arguments regarding delay or lack of prior registration.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163. The present order addressed Panasonic's application for document production against itself, accompanied by a request for confidentiality protection. The court issued a final consolidated confidentiality order, accepting most of the defendants' requested modifications to the provisional order, including clarifying the scope of legal representatives, expanding access to three named reliable persons, removing the return/destruction obligation, and setting a penalty of up to 100,000 EUR per culpable violation.
M/s. A. Murugan v.M/s. Union of India
M/s. A. Murugan filed an Appeal (Patents) challenging the order that granted Patent No. 267238, which was based on Application Number 126/CHENP/2008. The appeal sought to revoke the patent and dismiss the application. However, the court noted that the patent had not been renewed after July 7, 2021, rendering it non-forceful.
Black Berry Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Black Berry Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Application No.6579/CHENP/2011. However, the appellant subsequently instructed its counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Global Medikit Limited v.B.Braun Melsungen Ag
Global Medikit Limited filed a Transfer Original Petition (Patents) before the Madras High Court, seeking to rectify or revoke Indian Patent No. 210062. The court noted that the patent's term had already expired on August 18, 2018.
Jaisica International v.The Registrar of Trade Marks; Crystal Cook-N-Serve Products Pvt. Ltd.
Jaisica International filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order of abandonment concerning its device mark 'KRYSTAL'. However, before the High Court could rule on the merits of the case, the appellant voluntarily chose to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the matter as withdrawn without passing any substantive orders regarding costs.
Ved Prakash Malhotra (M/s. S.P. Products) v.M/s.Abhinav Export Corporation
This Madras High Court judgment addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of an opposition against a trademark application ('BLACK GOLD'). The court analyzed claims of similarity and prior use between 'BLACK N GOLD' (appellant) and 'BLACK GOLD' (respondent). While acknowledging the marks are nearly identical, the court found that the respondent successfully established honest concurrent use dating back to 1992. Consequently, the respondent was granted the benefit of Section 12, but their rights were narrowly restricted solely to henna hair dye products.
Nripendra Kashyap Esco Corporation v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nripendra Kashyap Esco Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application (737/DELNP/2009) for a wear assembly. The rejection was based on lack of distinct invention and inventive step. The High Court quashed the rejection, holding that objections must be restricted to those provided in writing, and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Saint-Gobain Abrasives appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents and Designs concerning Patent Application No. 201941052276 for a NONWOVEN ARTICLE. The appellants argued that the rejection based on lack of disclosure, definitiveness, and obviousness was unsustainable. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for re-consideration.
Insecticides (India) Limited v.Anu Products Limited
Insecticides (India) Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of its patent (IN 316801), which covers an insecticidal composition. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement via mediation, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms.
Lacoste S.A. v.Sheetal Fabrics
Lacoste S.A. filed a suit against Sheetal Fabrics alleging infringement of its trademark LACOSTE, passing off, and violation of copyrights in relation to garments and accessories. The court found that the defendant adopted and used trademarks deceptively similar to Lacoste's, causing loss to the plaintiff's reputation.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Prk Productions Llp
Himalaya Wellness Company filed a suit alleging trademark infringement against Prk Productions LLP over the use of 'VIMALAYA' in their film 'Aachar & Co.' The Plaintiffs argued that this usage distorted their established brands like 'HIMALAYA', 'Liv.52', etc., causing consumer confusion. Despite initial denials by the Defendant, the Court found strong evidence supporting the similarity and registered trademarks of the Plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was formally registered, and summons were issued to compel the Defendant to appear and defend the allegations.
Anjay Bansal v.Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned the rejection of a device mark registration applied for by Anjay Bansal. The initial refusal was based on the mark being non-distinctive or merely descriptive. However, the court found that the appellant successfully demonstrated long-standing use since 2005 through submitted invoices and annual reports. Citing the proviso to Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the High Court ruled that the mark had acquired distinctiveness through use, allowing it to proceed to advertisement.
Tibra Collection v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Tibra Collection filed suit against several unauthorized sellers operating on the Meesho platform (run by Fashnear Technologies Private Limited) for copyright infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were selling counterfeit garments that copied their designs and misusing their copyrighted photographs. After initial interim injunctions, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The court subsequently decreed the suit against the infringing sellers (Defendants 2-6), formalizing the undertaking which included a payment of Rs. 10 lakh to Tibra Collection and permanent cessation of all infringing activities.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr
The matter involved Natco Pharma Limited and Bristol Myers Squibb Company regarding Indian Patent No. IN 247381, which covers Factor Xa Inhibitors used in the pharmaceutical preparation APIXABAN. The parties amicably settled their disputes via an agreement dated August 8, 2023.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Hetero Healthcare Limited And Anr
In a complex trademark dispute, Sun Pharma sought permanent injunction against Hetero Healthcare regarding the alleged infringement of its mark 'LETROZ' by 'LETERO'. The court allowed the Defendants to challenge the validity of Sun Pharma's marks through a rectification petition under Section 57. Crucially, the court clarified that while invalidity can be challenged, the primary suit for passing off will proceed independently, leading to framing of multiple issues covering both infringement and validity.
myStromer AG v.Revolt Zycling AG, George Merachtsakis
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-11-22) under reference UPC-001676, myStromer AG appeared in dispute with Revolt Zycling AG, George Merachtsakis concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
M/S Malhotra Book Depot v.M/S Mbd Industries And Anr.
Malhotra Book Depot filed a suit against Mbd Industries, alleging trademark infringement and passing off due to the Defendant's use of the deceptively similar mark 'MBD' for non-metallic building materials. The Plaintiff held multiple registrations for 'MBD' across various classes related to publishing. During mediation, the parties agreed that the Defendants would change their mark to 'JMVD'. Consequently, the court disposed of all pending interim injunction applications, allowing the Defendants to continue operating under the new mark.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a refusal order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application 'Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices'. The refusal was based on lack of novelty and inventive step citing prior art. The court directed that an IPO official must be present for further hearings to address these technical objections.
Janssen Schiences Ireland Uc v.Controller Of Patents
Janssen Schiences Ireland Uc appealed the refusal of a patent application for 'Prevention of HIV- Infection with TMC278' by the Deputy Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability due to mere admixture. However, the appellant subsequently decided to withdraw the present appeal.
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix LLC appealed a refusal of its patent application, which covered an isomer used to treat ischemia. The refusal was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, requiring demonstration of 'enhanced therapeutic efficacy.' The court acknowledged the strict interpretation required by law but noted that the Patent Office had failed to consider various supporting data provided by the applicant. Consequently, the High Court directed the record back to the Patent Office for re-examination and final adjudication within a stipulated timeframe.
Retail Royalty Company & Anr. v.Garvit Khandelwal, Trading As Ektarfa Garments & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, Retail Royalty Company & Anr., against Garvit Khandelwal (Ektarfa) for trademark infringement involving 'American Eagle' apparel. Despite the defendant claiming lack of knowledge and offering a settlement, the court found him liable due to his previous conduct as an infringer. The suit was decreed with a permanent injunction and an award of Rs. 3,00,000/- in damages.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Naresh Kumar Goyal, Trading As Maiden Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex interplay between an infringement suit and concurrent rectification petitions concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court clarified that while the statute requires rectification to be decided first, the simultaneous filing by the plaintiff preempted the need for a mandatory adjournment. Consequently, the court framed multiple issues covering trademark validity, infringement, passing-off, and defenses like adoption from APIs, setting the case for trial.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Sauss Home Products Private Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex trademark dispute between Reckitt Benckiser and Sauss Home Products concerning the 'Robin Bird' device mark. The core issue revolves around establishing who is the prior adopter or owner of the distinctive mark and artistic work used on their respective products. The court has directed both parties to file comprehensive evidence, including marketing materials and advertisements, to substantiate their claims of priority. Furthermore, several applications regarding territorial jurisdiction, stays, and cancellation petitions are pending, indicating a multi-faceted legal battle.
Legrand France and Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd v.Praveen Kumar Jain (Trading as Biocon Tapes India) and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the trade mark register, successfully canceling an identical registration of 'LEGRAND' held by Praveen Kumar Jain. The court found that the petitioner, Legrand France, had prior and extensive use of the arbitrary mark since 1970 in India, while the respondent's goods (adhesive tapes) were complementary to the petitioner's electrical products (switches). Given the identical nature of the marks and the likelihood of public confusion due to overlapping distribution channels, the court ruled that the later registration was made without sufficient cause.
M/S.Silver Oak (India) Limited v.Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S. Silver Oak (India) Limited against Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. The core issue involved an opposition concerning Trade Mark No. 1116900 in Class 33. However, upon inquiry, the court found that the relevant trade mark had already been removed from the Register of Trade Marks. Consequently, the appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.
Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Brawn and Burk Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a civil suit against Brawn and Burk Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., seeking permanent injunctions for infringing the 'MALOXINE' trademark and copyrighted carton design, as well as damages for passing off. The original prayer sought to restrain the defendant from using similar marks or designs on pharmaceutical products. However, given that the plaintiff company had been wound up and remained inactive in prosecuting this very old suit since 1998, the Madras High Court dismissed the case for non-prosecution.
M/S TAG HEUER S.A. v.SH. AJIT SINGH
The plaintiff, M/s Tag Heuer S.A., a luxury watchmaker, filed a suit alleging that unknown persons were using its trademark on inferior quality counterfeit products. A Local Commissioner was appointed to search the premises of the defendant, where 137 watches and other materials bearing the plaintiff's trademark were recovered. The court found the material unrebutted and granted relief in favor of the plaintiff.
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v.Sharp Industries & The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha challenging an earlier order that allowed a competitor, Sharp Industries, to register the mark 'SHARP' for pumps. Despite presenting extensive evidence regarding its global reputation and prior use of the trademark, the court upheld the original decision. The core reasons for upholding the registration were that the goods in question (pumps) were deemed dissimilar from the appellant's primary products, and crucially, the appellant failed to definitively establish that 'SHARP' was a well-known mark within India as required by the Trade Marks Act.
M/s.K.P. Namboodiri'S Ayurvedics v.Dr. S. Sajikumar
The Madras High Court disposed of the petition filed by M/s.K.P. Namboodiri'S Ayurvedics against Dr. S. Sajikumar regarding the cancellation of a registered trademark (No. 1914715). The court noted that the contesting parties had entered into a Memorandum of Compromise dated October 31, 2023. Under this settlement, both parties agreed to permit each other's trademarks to coexist in the market and subsequently withdrew all related proceedings.
M/s.Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd v.BHCosmetics LLC
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd, granting a petition for rectification of the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the first respondent's subsequent trade mark registration was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior and established use of 'Blue Heaven.' Given that both marks are used in relation to cosmetics and related products, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and remove the impugned registration (No. 4200085) from the register.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2023-11-20) under reference UPC-001677, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE appeared in dispute with HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A v.M.G Products / M.G Food Product
Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A filed a cancellation petition seeking rectification of a specific copyright registration (A-79261/2007) held by M.G. Products. The court examined the matter in light of a prior civil suit that had been decreed based on a settlement agreement dated October 31, 2012. This settlement explicitly included the Respondent's agreement to cancel the impugned copyright registration. Consequently, the Delhi High Court directed the cancellation and expungement of the registration from the Register of Copyrights.
Nripendra Kashyap, Constituted Attorney Of Blackberry Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents
The appellant, Blackberry Limited, challenged the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 8984/CHENP/2012 by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and anticipation by prior art documents D1-D4. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Assistant Controller failed to address key submissions made by the appellant regarding the technical differences between the invention and the cited prior art.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (1519/DELNP/2005) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The appeal was ultimately disposed of by the Delhi High Court because the life term of the patent application had expired during the pendency of the appeal.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs concerning Patent No. 207232. The appellant subsequently instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal due to the expiry of the patent term.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2023-11-17) under reference UPC-001678, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE appeared in dispute with HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY concerning patent rights and legal remedies.